662 Mp: “By these terms (jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ) the plane of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi) is indicated.” In the History of Buddhism, as well as in modern scholarship, the question of whether the Buddha claimed omniscience has been the subject of debate. The Buddha certainly rejected the claim that one could know everything all the time (see MN 71.5, I 482, 4–18) as well as the claim that one could know everything simultaneously (see MN 90.8, II 127, 28–30). But he also says that to hold that he totally rejects the possibility of omniscience is to misrepresent him MN 90.5, II 126, 31–27, 11).Thus is seems to follow that what the Buddha rejected is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous knowledge of everything, but not discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known (which would exclude much of the future, since it is not predetermined).

I know that I am a gawdawful heretic, thrashing about needlessly, but I'd rather take this compound, sabbaññu, as meaning knowing the all rather than all knowing, which could be grammatically possible, depending upon how the compound is parsed, but then, of course, it did not happen that way.

Bodhi’s caution does seem to meet with what is contextually plausible, the commentators’ penchant for superlative notwithstanding.

“jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ” have always indicated a contemplative knowledge unburdened by ordinary conceptual habits, where one sees things truly as they are such (tādī). So wherever this quality of knowing is directed, one knows that clearly as “discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known”.

“I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

ancientbuddhism wrote:“jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ” have always indicated a contemplative knowledge unburdened by ordinary conceptual habits, where one sees things truly as they are such (tādī). So wherever this quality of knowing is directed, one knows that clearly as “discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known”.

662 Mp: “By these terms (jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ) the plane of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi) is indicated.” In the History of Buddhism, as well as in modern scholarship, the question of whether the Buddha claimed omniscience has been the subject of debate. The Buddha certainly rejected the claim that one could know everything all the time (see MN 71.5, I 482, 4–18) as well as the claim that one could know everything simultaneously (see MN 90.8, II 127, 28–30). But he also says that to hold that he totally rejects the possibility of omniscience is to misrepresent him MN 90.5, II 126, 31–27, 11).Thus is seems to follow that what the Buddha rejected is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous knowledge of everything, but not discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known (which would exclude much of the future, since it is not predetermined).

I know that I am a gawdawful heretic, thrashing about needlessly, but I'd rather take this compound, sabbaññu, as meaning knowing the all rather than all knowing, which could be grammatically possible, depending upon how the compound is parsed, but then, of course, it did not happen that way.

Bodhi’s caution does seem to meet with what is contextually plausible, the commentators’ penchant for superlative notwithstanding.

“jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ” have always indicated a contemplative knowledge unburdened by ordinary conceptual habits, where one sees things truly as they are such (tādī). So wherever this quality of knowing is directed, one knows that clearly as “discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known”.

This works.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

In the Commentary to the Brahmjala Sutta, Tr. by Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, (The
All-embracing Net of Views, p. 128) we find under <Deep, difficult to see> a
discussion about it that the plural <dhammas> is used for the objects of
omniscience, sabba~n~nuta~naa.na. I only quote parts, it is rather long. It
is said:

<Because it takes a multiplicity of objects... It knows the entire past,
thus it is knowledge of omniscience, thus it is the unobstructed knowledge,
etc (Pts I.1.73). Therefore, because it is associated with multiple classes
of consciousness, and because it takes a multiplicity of objects on the
successive occasions of its arising, it is described in the plural.>
There is a discussion in the Subco. :<Query: If this is so, how is it
possible for a single, limited type of knowledge to penetrate without
omission the entire range of the knowable with its inconceivable,
immeasurable subdivisions?
Reply: Who says the Buddha-knowledge is limited?.... With the abandoning of
the entire obstruction of the knowable, the Exalted One gained unobstructed
knowledge which occurs subject to his wish and is capable of comprehending
all dhammas in all their modes. By means of this knowledge the Exalted One
was capable of penetrating all dhammas in continuous succession (santanena);
therefore he was omniscient or all-knowing in the way fire is called
"all-consuming" through its ability to burn all its fuel in continuous
succession. He was not, however, omniscient in the sense that he could
comprehend all dhammas simultaneously. >

This text refers to the Tika of the Visuddhimagga, VII, 29, footnote 7,
where there is the same discussion.
The Visuddhimagga, in the "Recollection of the Buddha" explains all the
words we use when paying respect to the Buddha. As to "Endowed with clear
vision and virtuous conduct, vijja carana sampanno", we read VII, 32:
<

Herein, the Blessed One's possession of clear vision consists in the
fulfilment of Omniscience (Ps. I, 131) , while his possession of conduct
consists in the fulfilment of the Great Compassion (Ps. 1, 126). He knows
through omniscience what is good and harmful for all beings, and through
compassion he warns them of harm and exhorts them to do good. >

The text of the Path of Discrimination (Patisambhidamagga) about omniscience
has been referred to in the previously quoted texts. I shall only quote a
part of it. We read in Ch 72 (p. 131):

<

What is the Perfect One's omniscient knowledge?
It knows without exception all that is formed and unformed, thus it is
omniscient knowledge: it is without obstruction there, thus it is
unobstructed knowledge.
All that is past it knows, thus it is omniscient knowledge: it is without
obstruction there, thus it is unobstructed knowledge.
All that is future it knows,...
All that is presently-arisen it knows...
Eye and visible objects: all that it knows...
Ear and sounds: all that it knows...
Nose and odours:all that it knows...
Tongue and flavours:all that it knows...
Body and tangible objects: all that it knows...
Mind and ideas (dhammas): all that it knows...>

After that the objects are the extent of the meaning of the three
characteristics of dhammas, knowledge of the extent of the meaning of direct
knowledge, etc. , of the khandhas, dhatus, bases (ayatanas) etc. Further on
we read:
<

To the extent of what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered,
sought, considered by the mind, in the world with its deities, its Maras and
its Brahma Gods, in this genertaion with its ascetics and brahmans, with its
princes and men: all that it knows, thus it is omniscient knowledge: it is
without obstruction there, thus it is unobstructed knowledge.

Here in this world is naught unseen by him,
Naught uncognized, and naught unknowable;
He has experienced all that can be known:
Therefore the Perfect One is called All-seer...

My understanding, and the point that I thought Tilt was making, was that:

1. The Arahant's awakening/liberation from Samsara/whatever you want to call it/ is the same as a Buddha's. He is fully liberated.

2. A Buddha has some extra skills, as in the Suttas you quoted, because he had to develop them to become a Buddha.

I don't see any contradiction...

Mike

That makes sense to me. The Samma Sambuddha has cultivated specialized skills necessary to understand the needs and capacities of common wordlings in need od Dhamma Instruction.

I see all kinds of logical problems with the view that Complete Awakening is the exclusive attainment of the Samyak Sambuddhas. For one, it would mean that Sambodhi can not be attained without the presence of common wordlings in need of instruction. If there were no beings bound by kamma, afflicted by the 4 distortions, plagued by hindrances, and so on; then no one could attain complete Awakening.

Moreover, if we take the concept of omniscience to its logical conclusion; then the Samma Sambuddha should have all possible cultivated skills. He would be more than a master teacher and psychologist; he would also know how to build airplanes and split atoms.

I am unclear on at which stage of cultivation the Savaka can allegedly still change paths and elect to be a Bodhisatta. I have been told it is impossible once one attains the fruition of Stream Entry. Others say it is still possible prior to attaining Nibbana. It seems safe to say that the Samma Sambuddha requires Savaka to instruct, and some of his followers will inevitably become Arahants; will attain Nibbana, and they will never be Samma Sambuddhas. That would mean, to attain Complete Awakening, one must prevent at least some other beings from attaining Complete Awakened.

The report that has been spread about Master Gotama is true, sir, and not otherwise; and Master Gotama is one such as this and not otherwise. He possesses the thirty-two marks of a Great Man.

Master Gotama sets his foot down squarely — this is a mark of a Great Man in Master Gotama. On the soles of his feet there are wheels with a thousand spokes and ribs and hubs all complete … He has projecting heels … He has long fingers and toes … His hands and feet are soft and tender … He has netted hands and feet … His feet are arched … He has legs like an antelope's … When he stands without stooping, the palms of both his hands touch and rub against his knees … His male organ is enclosed in a sheath … He is the colour of gold, his skin has a golden sheen … He is fine-skinned, and because of the fineness of his skin, dust and dirt do not stick on his body … His body-hairs grow singly, each body-hair growing alone in a hair socket … The tips of his body-hairs turn up; the up-turned body-hairs are blue-black, the colour of collyrium, curled and turned to the right … He has the straight limbs of a Brahma … He has seven convexities … He has the torso of a lion … The furrow between his shoulders is filled in … He has the spread of a banyan tree; the span of his arms equals the height of his body, and the height of his body equals the span of his arms … His neck and his shoulders are even … His taste is supremely acute … He is lion-jawed … He has forty teeth … His teeth are even … His teeth are without gaps … His teeth are quite white … He has a large tongue … He has a divine voice, like the call of the Karavika bird … His eyes are deep blue … He has the eyelashes of an ox … He has hair growing in the space between his eyebrows, which is white with the sheen of soft cotton … His head is shaped like a turban - this is a mark of a Great Man in Master Gotama. Master Gotama is endowed with these thirty-two marks of a Great Man.

These are just a few examples, without even taking into consideration passages from the Khuddakanikāya, etc.

But then these qualities of the mahapurusha are also shared by great emperors. They don't signify a buddha. They signify a leader. The meaning is that Buddha led the way.

tiltbillings wrote:The problem with the "here" is in the question of what is bodhi. The 32 marks aren't bodhi as described in the suttas, nor is omniscience. And the one thing we do see in the suttas is that what the Buddha attained in terms of bodhi is what the arahant attains. So, the question is: What is bodhi as defined by the suttas?

Already addressed: AN 4.24 implicitly accounts for the stage of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi). SN 6.1 implicitly accounts for the knowledge of degrees of maturity in the faculties of sentient beings (indriyaparopariyattañāṇa) and the knowledge of the dispositions and underlying tendencies of sentient beings (āsayānusayañāṇa).

Both explanations are straight out of the Theravāda commentaries on the suttas, and in addition to what was offered from the canonical Psm here, renders your opinion that, "The "enlightenment" -- bodhi -- of the arahant is no different from that of the Buddha," an example of modernist secular revisionism that has no precedent in the history of Theravāda Buddhism.